A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.

The more widespread use of body cameras will make it easier for the American public to better understand how police officers do their jobs and under what circumstances they feel that it is necessary to resort to deadly force.

Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.

The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is not just a framework for utopia,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.

Search form

Tag: ken cuccinelli

In a nation with a strong tradition of holding major political contests in years divisible by the number two, politicos are mostly confined to chirping about distant elections during odd-numbered years. The exceptions in the year following a presidential election are New Jersey and Virginia, which hold their gubernatorial elections. In addition, due to the passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey will hold a special election to the U.S. Senate. In all three elections, one or both of the major candidates have made school choice an issue. That makes sense because school choice is increasingly popular, especially once implemented. Unfortunately, while the candidates should be commended for promoting school choice policies in general, their specifics leave much to be desired.

Last week, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, unveiled an education plan calling for an expansion of the state’s scholarship tax credit program (or the creation of a separate program) that would direct funds to students currently attending a failing public school. However, what Virginia’s scholarship tax credit program really needs is the policy equivalent of Extreme Home Makeover to remove unnecessary regulations on private schools, shift administration of the program to the Department of Revenue, increase the credit amount, and expand the uses of the scholarships beyond just tuition. As Andrew Coulson has demonstrated, it is the least regulated, most market-like private schools that do the best job of serving families.

Last week I reported that 40 percent of Virginia Republicans – and 56 percent of independents – now support gay marriage. But on Saturday the Virginia GOP nominated three statewide candidates whose views on homosexuality and marriage equality range from unwavering opposition to bigoted to insane.

Gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli came out swinging against the “extremist” label in his convention acceptance speech:

“When did it become extreme to protect children from predators and human traffickers?” Cuccinelli asked. “When did it become extreme to guard our Constitution from overreach? When did it become extreme to secure the freedom of the wrongly convicted? And when did it become extreme to ask government to spend a little less so our economy can grow?”

Like Gov. Bob McDonnell four years ago, Cuccinelli will try to focus on jobs and the economy in his race against big-government crony capitalist Terry McAuliffe. But there’s a reason that a report by the Republican National Committee found that voters see the GOP as “scary,” “narrow minded,” and “out of touch” – and the Virginia Republican ticket is part of that reason.

If you read Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post, you witnessed the too-rare spectacle of a Republican denouncing his own party’s hypocrisy on medical malpractice reform:

With Senate Bill 197 — legislation that would have the federal government dictate how state judges are to try medical malpractice cases and cap what state courts may award — several Republican senators have…take[n] an approach that implies “Washington knows best” while trampling states’ authority and the 10th Amendment. The legislation is breathtakingly broad in its assumptions about federal power, particularly the same power to regulate commerce that lies at the heart of all the lawsuits (including Virginia’s) against the individual mandate of the 2010 federal health-care law. I have little doubt that the senators who brought us S. 197 oppose the use of the commerce clause to compel individuals to buy health insurance. Yet they have no qualms about dictating to state court judges how they are to conduct trials in state lawsuits…

This legislation expands federal power, tramples the states and violates the Constitution. And if it were ever signed into law — by a Republican or Democratic president — I would file suit against it just as fast as I filed suit when the federal health-care bill was signed into law in March 2010 (15 minutes later).

Uncertainty over the practical effect of Judge Roger Vinson’s decision on Monday that ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety continues to swirl all across the country. The day after the decision came down, as I noted here on Wednesday, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, one of the parties to the suit, issued a statement saying: “This means that, for Wisconsin, the federal health care law is dead,” and his state “was relieved of any obligations or duties” to carry out the statute. And just today Alaska’s Governor Sean Parnell asked his attorney general to advise him on whether implementing and enforcing the federal healthcare overhaul would put Parnell in violation of his oath of office. He told reporters that he took an oath to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and Alaska, adding that he has a duty to uphold the law. Other governors and state AGs, to say nothing of insurance companies, employers, and ordinary citizens, are all in the same boat, and will be until the Supreme Court finally decides the matter, which may be a year or more in the offing.

Here’s the legal issue in a nutshell. Two district courts have upheld the statute. Prior to Monday’s ruling, a district court in Virginia found a core element in ObamaCare, the individual mandate, to be unconstitutional. And on Monday Judge Vinson, in the Northern District of Florida, issued a “declaratory judgment,” declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety. In his opinion he held that the judgment was “the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction,” and he added that “it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” The Obama administration has thus far shown no inclination to “adhere to the law as declared by the court.” Nor has the administration thus far sought to stay any practical effects of the court’s ruling.

Just what those effects may be is what is unclear, leading to the confusion. It would seem, at a minimum, that the parties to the suit are bound by the judgment. If so, at the least, the government has no authority to implement the statute within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of Florida. But beyond that jurisdiction, does the government have authority to do so with respect to those parties? Suppose one of the winning plaintiffs sought to enjoin the government in a jurisdiction that had upheld the statute. On which of the conflicting decisions would the court decide to grant or deny the motion? Suppose the government sought a writ of mandamus from a court in such a jurisdiction, ordering one of the plaintiffs to comply with the statute. Again, on which of the conflicting decisions would the court decide to grant or deny the motion?

The administration could seek to stay the effects of the two decisions that went against it, of course, which isn’t to say a court would necessarily issue such a stay. After all, if it turns out that those rulings are correct, a huge amount of trouble and expense, especially in financially strapped states, will have been for nothing – and vast insurance and medical markets will have been uprooted.

Not surprisingly, therefore, there is action in the political branches to try more quickly to resolve this matter. Yesterday, for example, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked the Supreme Court to bypass the normal appeals process and review the decision from that state directly. The Obama Justice Department said it will oppose the motion. Then just today Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and 15 of her Republican colleagues announced that they’re working “to place a moratorium on any further implementation of the statute until there has been final judicial resolution in the pending lawsuits challenging the law.” Of particular note: “The bill delays provisions and new regulations of the Obama health care law not in effect on the date of enactment until final judicial resolution of the lawsuits. The bill does not suspend features of the law already in effect on the date of enactment.” And finally, on the other side of the aisle, Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) has just introduced a “Sense of the Congress” resolution urging the Supreme Court to put the matter on a fast track to resolution. Stay tuned, there’s much at stake.

The following analogy may help to explain why everyone should be troubled by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ effortstointimidate insurance companies who say unflattering things about ObamaCare.

Last month, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), issued an opinion that state regulatory boards already have the authority to impose additional regulations on abortion clinics. Critics pounced, claiming that the measure could shut down 17 of the state’s 21 clinics. What if Cuccinelli responded with a letter threatening to investigate clinics that “misinform” the public about the costs of such regulation?